Could be avoided by restating it as "a right to be tried fairly or otherwise not tried". The right of the citizen to have crimes against him investigated and brought to justice, that's another matter.

A better example might be that your right to a jury trial conflicts with my right to freedom of movement, but the government explicitly resolves that contradiction by making it a crime to avoid jury duty.

That happens, you believe?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/canada-jorda...

What about the victims' right to justice and to be secure against violations of their rights (bodily integrity and health, property, freedom of movement and flourishing)? If there are no judges and all the criminals are left to roam the streets, they are free to continue victimizing anyone they choose. Seems to me that these rights have a lot of mutually incompatible features. You can't provide for one person's rights without compelling action from another.

Healthcare, on the other hand, is not necessarily the government’s domain because people have the freedom to live unhealthily if they want. There is no law which says you must keep yourself healthy. How do you even measure that for different people? For what it’s worth, I think people should get universal healthcare because populations getting sick impacts productivity.

In 25 states, if you are pregnant, it is against the law to be unhealthy, specifically but not limited to substance abuse.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...

So, what?

edit: here, HN, the literal stat:

> From 2000 to 2015, the number of states with these punitive policies increased more than 2-fold from 12 to 25, and the number of states requiring health care professionals to report suspected prenatal drug abuse to child protective services or health officials increased from 12 to 23

and i know a policy isn't a law but the word punitive is right there, so

I think a better counter example to my “there’s no law which requires health” statement are anti-smoking stipulations against people born after a certain year. So essentially, anti-smoking laws do make an assumption that you’ll get unhealthy if you smoke, and therefore you shouldn’t. However, policymakers can say that you’re not obligated to healthcare as a right because there are different laws which are already protecting your health, and they would be right in their own place.

The reason I think universal healthcare makes policy sense is that health outcomes are dependent on randomness. Someone can have bad genetics, or be born into environmental conditions which impact their health, both things which are random and not under personal control. I don’t think it’s a good idea to leave national productivity up to randomness, especially when environmental factors like pollution can have deterministic effects, like worsening population-level health outcomes. For a country as big as the US, healthcare should be left to the states to decide, but most states will find that providing healthcare will result in better productivity (I think).

this is just twisting definitions. The law can't remove the fetus if the person carrying it is abusing drugs (or whatever), so the law applies to the person carrying the fetus. That is a "law that says you can't be unhealthy" and the reason is "because it hurts the fetus".

we also put people that have pica disorder into mental hospitals, because they eat things that are not healthy.

We have that (compulsory jury duty).